Election 2008

[noahbody]

Once the war started to go the way it did, Harper changed his tune from this:

Sorry, you stated this:

I am talking about an election platform which is separate from the policies in a convention since election promises are generally costed out.

So, to which election were you referring, the one in 2004 that I've shown he had a different position or the previous election in 2000 before 911?

[jazzer]

Good work in showing yet another falsehood from liberal-minded posters.

These leads to a very interesting question.

Are these boards supposed to be about honest political debate or simply posting partisan rhetoric.

We have a determined poster who won't allow anything but partisan rhetoric. He ignores any information that doesn't fit his world views and his impotence and anger is growing daily.

Thankfully there are a number of posters here who take turns in pointing out the habitual misstatements.

Too bad many other posters forget about what Harper campaigned on: accountability. Holding his feet to the fire is a responsibility of voters. And in case you forgot, politics are partisan.

[jdobbin]

Sorry, you stated this:

So, to which election were you referring, the one in 2004 that I've shown he had a different position or the previous election in 2000 before 911?

Your are correct. His position in 2004 was the it wasn't feasible. The position in 2003 was that the Tories would have gone to war in Iraq if they had been in government. My mistake.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[Argus]

Actually it was the Tories who showed that daycare spaces were created by the Liberal program and their program was not doing the job. It was well discussed here in the forums

Again, I see no details whatsoever of an alleged Liberal child care plan. I don't believe there ever was one and I don't believe they have one now.

I don't believe a Liberal government would ever implement a child care program as the Liberals have repeatedly demonstrated they are opposed to such a program (however much they might claim otherwise during election campaigns).

[Argus]

Once the war started to go the way it did, Harper changed his tune from this:

The Wall Street Post article and the Fox interviews that Harper did as well left little doubt that if he were prime minister, Canada would be in Iraq. There wasn't any "feasible" talk in 2003.

I don't see the point in leftists constantly bringing this up. Even if we had gone to Iraq it doesn't mean we'd have stayed. Australia went to Iraq for two years and lost a lot fewer people than we ever did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the Liberal's preferred choice. Well compare our casualties in Afghanistan to Australia's during their tours in Iraq. We might well have come out better off than we are now.

[Michael Bluth]

Too bad many other posters forget about what Harper campaigned on: accountability. Holding his feet to the fire is a responsibility of voters. And in case you forgot, politics are partisan.

That is the role of citizens in a democracy.

However, if the only way to do so is by continually misrepresenting the facts and flouting the rules of a partly publicly-funded message board is telling.

1. Can't do it honestly, so they Government is doing a pretty good job.

2. Can't do it honestly, so the opposition isn't ready to form a credible government.

3. Why are the rules of this board continually bent for an habitual fact misrepresenter?

[jdobbin]

Too bad many other posters forget about what Harper campaigned on: accountability. Holding his feet to the fire is a responsibility of voters. And in case you forgot, politics are partisan.

You'll probably be accused of misrepresenting what Harper really meant. heh

Speaking of accountability, what ever happened to that Freedom of Information legislation that was promised?

[jdobbin]

I don't see the point in leftists constantly bringing this up. Even if we had gone to Iraq it doesn't mean we'd have stayed. Australia went to Iraq for two years and lost a lot fewer people than we ever did in Afghanistan. Afghanistan was the Liberal's preferred choice. Well compare our casualties in Afghanistan to Australia's during their tours in Iraq. We might well have come out better off than we are now.

Yes, I suppose we could have taken the safer jobs in Iraq.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/iraq_t...ntribution.html

* An Australian Joint Task Force Headquarters for national command of maritime, land and air elements deployed in the Middle East, comprising around 50 personnel.

* A naval component of about 190 personnel, comprising HMAS Stuart, participating in Coalition maritime interception operations in the northern Persian Gulf, and a Logistic Support Element.

* An RAAF C-130 Hercules detachment of about 150 personnel providing intra-theatre air lift and sustainment support in the Middle East, with two transport aircraft, ground crew and other support elements.

* An Air Traffic Control detachment and support personnel at Baghdad International Airport providing air traffic control services, and Combined Air Operations Staff, totalling around 60 personnel.

* A security detachment of about 90 personnel including Australian Light Armoured Vehicles and explosive ordnance personnel to provide protection and escort for Australian Government personnel working in our diplomatic mission in Baghdad.

* Ten analysts and technical experts to support the Iraq Survey Group, investigating Iraq's past weapons of mass destruction programs.

* An Australian contribution to Coalition headquarters and units, and combined logistics and communications elements, comprising about 90 personnel.

* A military liaison officer with the Australian diplomatic mission in Baghdad.

* A military adviser to the Special Representative of the UN Secretary-General.

* Five ADF personnel working with the Coalition Provisional Authority in Baghdad and al-Hillah.

* An RAAF AP-3C Orion detachment of about 160 personnel conducting maritime patrol operations, with two aircraft and associated command and support elements, supporting stabilisation operations in Iraq and the Coalition operation against terrorism.

* Fifty-two ADF soldiers and sailors assisting with the training of the new Iraqi Army and Iraqi Coastal Defence Force.

In the end though even this type of work was not enough to get Howard re-elected. The new government was elected based on getting the troops out and helping in Afghanistan.

I think that is where Osama was last seen.

It is too bad that Harper was so anxious to go to Iraq. If as many resources had been put into Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden may have been dealt with and the country left more stable than it is.

Edited December 25, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Speaking of accountability, what ever happened to that Freedom of Information legislation that was promised?

Speaking of honesty and fostering fair debate, do provide a link to this promised legislation?

Given you track record of habitually misstating facts and intentions of the Government it is a fair question.

[jdobbin]

Again, I see no details whatsoever of an alleged Liberal child care plan. I don't believe there ever was one and I don't believe they have one now.

Two years of the plan was in effect. One of those years was while the Tories were in power as they promised to continue the Liberal plan while they got the legislation through on their plan. The Tory plan was a big fat failure though even according to its own minister. It was "undoable."

[Argus]

Yes, I suppose we could have taken the safer jobs in Iraq.

http://www.dfat.gov.au/publications/iraq_t...ntribution.html

The Australians had combat troops in Iraq. About 1400 troops were part of the operation a couple of years ago. That number has since been reduced. I fail to understand your need to attempt to minimize this.

In the end though even this type of work was not enough to get Howard re-elected. The new government was elected based on getting the troops out and helping in Afghanistan

Actually Howard DID get re-elected with a majority after going into Iraq. He lost the most recent election, however, for a number of reasons not excluding Iraq.

It is too bad that Harper was so anxious to go to Iraq. If as many resources had been put into Afghanistan, Osama bin Laden may have been dealt with and the country left more stable than it is.

Are you suggesting Harper is responsible for the United States invasion of Iraq? Does there not come a point in your campaign against him where even you feel embarrassed at the many things you try to lay at his doorstep? Or like so many Liberal Party members, are you incapable of feeling shame at anything at all?

[Argus]

Two years of the plan was in effect. One of those years was while the Tories were in power as they promised to continue the Liberal plan while they got the legislation through on their plan. The Tory plan was a big fat failure though even according to its own minister. It was "undoable."

What are the details of this plan? You're a Liberal party member and volunteer and you don't have even one single detail!?!? What plan!?

There never was a Liberal plan. Despite campaigning on it for four or five elections you guys never did anything for child care and there is no reason for anyone to believe you ever will.

[Michael Bluth]

Are you suggesting Harper is responsible for the United States invasion of Iraq? Does there not come a point in your campaign against him where even you feel embarrassed at the many things you try to lay at his doorstep? Or like so many Liberal Party members, are you incapable of feeling shame at anything at all?

You questions are fair. The never ending attacks are quite detracting from the purpose of the boards.

The attitude leaves only two options. Cede to his impotent attacks or repeatedly point out the ever-present problems with the posts.

To answer your questions in order:

It appears that he is.

You would need a conscience to feel embarrassed.

Doesn't appear that he can feel any shame at all.

[jdobbin]

What are the details of this plan? You're a Liberal party member and volunteer and you don't have even one single detail!?!? What plan!?

There never was a Liberal plan. Despite campaigning on it for four or five elections you guys never did anything for child care and there is no reason for anyone to believe you ever will.

Sorry you have not been able to find it. Showed you the link already that the Tories continued the Liberal plan for a year after they were elected.

Here is the list of all the agreements.

http://www.childcarecanada.org/res/issues/...ndchildcare.htm

This is the second time I have posted this and it has been posted long ago in these forums and was well discussed at the time.

Edited December 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[jdobbin]

The Australians had combat troops in Iraq. About 1400 troops were part of the operation a couple of years ago. That number has since been reduced. I fail to understand your need to attempt to minimize this.

Actually Howard DID get re-elected with a majority after going into Iraq. He lost the most recent election, however, for a number of reasons not excluding Iraq.

Are you suggesting Harper is responsible for the United States invasion of Iraq? Does there not come a point in your campaign against him where even you feel embarrassed at the many things you try to lay at his doorstep? Or like so many Liberal Party members, are you incapable of feeling shame at anything at all?

Combat troops went in from Australia first but met with little or no resistance. The U.S. went deeper into Iraq as initial areas were secured by the first forces namely Australia and Britain. The Australian combat troops were withdrawn shortly after the war. They returned in 2005 to the present mission I posted.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_co...nvasion_of_Iraq

Combat forces committed to Operation Falconer for the 2003 Invasion were withdrawn during 2003. Australian combat troops were redeployed to Iraq in 2005, however, and assumed responsibility for supporting Iraqi security forces in one of Iraq's southern provinces. These troops will be withdrawn during 2008.

Australian combat troops weren't in Iraq at the previous election in 2004. They were in support roles.

I'm not suggesting anything about the U.S. I'm saying that Harper's intent was to send Canadian troops to Iraq in 2003.

edited to put in combat troops.

Edited December 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Sorry you have not been able to find it. Showed you the link already that the Tories continued the Liberal plan for a year after they were elected.

Please re-post.

[bush_cheney2004]

...Australian troops weren't in Iraq at the previous election in 2004.

This is patently false. Australia's intitial force of about 2,000 was scaled back to 900 by the 2004 election. In fact, one of PM Howard's political adversaries promised to bring the remaining troops home if his party prevailed in the election.

...Latham had been opposed to Australia's involvement in Iraq and had vowed to bring the remaining 900 troops base in Iraq home by the end of the year if he won government.

http://www.cnn.com/2004/WORLD/asiapcf/10/0...vote/index.html

Edited December 25, 2007 by bush_cheney2004

[Argus]

Combat troops went in from Australia first but met with little or no resistance. The U.S. went deeper into Iraq as initial areas were secured by the first forces namely Australia and Britain. The Australian combat troops were withdrawn shortly after the war. They returned in 2005 to the present mission I posted.

Yes. Indeed. Thanks for making my point. We could have done exactly the same, and suffered virtually no casualties as the Australians did.

Instead, the Liberals chose to send our troops to Afghanistan, where dozens have died.

So perhaps you will tell me why you think we must be ever thankful that we didn't do as the Australians did and go into Iraq?

[jdobbin]

Yes. Indeed. Thanks for making my point. We could have done exactly the same, and suffered virtually no casualties as the Australians did.

Instead, the Liberals chose to send our troops to Afghanistan, where dozens have died.

So perhaps you will tell me why you think we must be ever thankful that we didn't do as the Australians did and go into Iraq?

From a strictly military casualties basis, if we had done what the Australians did and kept our combat troops away from the fight, we would have done better.

In terms of the fact that Afghanistan represented more of a threat to Canada than Iraq with its protection and support of Osama bin Laden, I think we made the right decision to be involved in Afghanistan. I believe that over the years that the Iraq war has been a drain of resources that would have been better in pacifying Afghanistan and returning it to the Afghan government.

Even with no real losses in Iraq, most Australians came to view it as the wrong war to be in. It had a huge influence on this last election.

In any event, I certainly have never heard Harper brag that if Canada had followed his leadership and gone to war in Iraq that everything would have been peachy.

Edited December 26, 2007 by jdobbin

[Michael Bluth]

Even with no real losses in Iraq, most Australians came to view it as the wrong war to be in. It had a huge influence on this last election.

Perhaps it isn't a matter of habitually misrepresenting facts to support your distaste for Harper. It appears to be just misrepresentation for the purpose of 'strengthening' whatever case you are trying to make.

Here is the link to the 'Issues' section of the Wikipedia page on the last Australian election.

Granted there are the usual caveats with Wikipedia, but there are a lot of links to sources on this page.

From the issues page there were seven issues highlighted: 'Workchoices' which made changes to labour laws, healthcare, education, the economy, the environment and national security.

So is Wikipedia wrong in this case? Or could it be that perhaps Iraq didn't have a huge influence on the last election?

Edited December 26, 2007 by Michael Bluth

[Argus]

In terms of the fact that Afghanistan represented more of a threat to Canada than Iraq with its protection and support of Osama bin Laden, I think we made the right decision to be involved in Afghanistan.

How odd then, that you and your party now want to abandon the fight and run away. I mean, either it's the right decision, because Afghanistan is a threat to us, or it's not. If it was then why do you guys want to run away?

But of course, your party only decided that Afghanistan was bad after they became the opposition. Now that they see political advantage to be had they're all bemoaning the casualties and the loss of our noble image as neutral peacekeepers.

This is one of the reasons I so despise the Liberals. The NDP are just being their usual stupidly naive and ignorant selves in opposing Afghanistan, for they're stuck in a time warp from the flower power days of the late sixties. But the Liberals know better. Their opposition to war is based entirely on weaselly political manoeuvring.

In any event, I certainly have never heard Harper brag that if Canada had followed his leadership and gone to war in Iraq that everything would have been peachy.

Why would he? How could he know what would have happened? Unlike you, who knows for a certainty that if Martin had been re-elected we'd not only have had no casualties but the mission would not have been extended, Harper makes no great claim to omniscience.

[jdobbin]

How odd then, that you and your party now want to abandon the fight and run away. I mean, either it's the right decision, because Afghanistan is a threat to us, or it's not. If it was then why do you guys want to run away?

But of course, your party only decided that Afghanistan was bad after they became the opposition. Now that they see political advantage to be had they're all bemoaning the casualties and the loss of our noble image as neutral peacekeepers.

This is one of the reasons I so despise the Liberals. The NDP are just being their usual stupidly naive and ignorant selves in opposing Afghanistan, for they're stuck in a time warp from the flower power days of the late sixties. But the Liberals know better. Their opposition to war is based entirely on weaselly political manoeuvring.

Why would he? How could he know what would have happened? Unlike you, who knows for a certainty that if Martin had been re-elected we'd not only have had no casualties but the mission would not have been extended, Harper makes no great claim to omniscience.

I've always thought that a deadline was important rather than an open ended committment. Running away from helping is what our allies have been doing. It has been far to easy too let Canada sit in Kandahar rather than committing fresh troops from another nation to rotate in or to make sure that Afghan troops are ready to do the job.

I've never mentioned anything about neutral peacekeepers and that has not been the position of the Liberal party for its work in Afghanistan. Perhaps you are talking about the NDP position on the subject.

Martin specifically said we were going to have casualties. He also placed a deadline on the commitment. I have no idea what he would have done in terms of extension but I would have opposed it if it meant an open ended commitment with no back up. I think I specifically would have asked for a written committment of more troops rotating in to at least hold the land that Canada took in the first place. I don't know about you but it is increasingly disappointing to hear Canada have to re-take the same land year and after year.